Will the real Anonynous please stand up

Herewith is where my confusion developed by Anonymous #1, posted as Date:
Sun, 31 Dec 1995 18:34:56 -0600, Message-Id:
<199601010034.SAA07422@tjava.com>: 
 
The story as presented by Anon #1, while supposedly from Reuters quotes the
Associated Press, something that rarely if even happens. 
 
Another story, posted by Anonymous #2 (presumably the same entity as
Anonymous #1), posted as Date: Mon, 1 Jan 1996 01:25:12 +0100, Message-Id:
<199601010025.BAA04537@utopia.hacktic.nl> 
is slugged "BEIJING (AP)_ " and quotes Xinhua News Agency; 
 
A reference by Anonymous #3 (presumably the same entity as Anon #1 & #2),
posted as Date: Wed, 3 Jan 1996 14:47:35 -0800, Message-Id:
<199601032247.OAA00603@jobe.shell.portal.com> states that  the faked story
changed the words "Xinhua news agency" to "the Associated Press." 
 
Looking down the list of posts to the cp list for past posts by "Anonymous"
the first one I came to was titled "first germany, now china" and not "US
calls for measures... " as Anonymous #3 wrote in the referencing post. 
 
There were at least two wire service stories: 
 
Reuters: China calls for measures against Internet porn 
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 1995 9:20:13 PST 
Message-ID: <Rchina-internetURelN_5DV@clari.net> 
clari.news.censorship 
 
Associated Press: China to Block Internet Porn 
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 1995 15:10:29 PST 
Message-ID: <Ainternet-pornURTH5_5DV@clari.net> 
clari.news.censorship 
 
Add to this is the confusion that several entities are posting to the cp
list using the same name -- "Anonymous" -- without differentiating their
posts from any of the other posts by (inferentially) other entities with
the same name. 
 
I have no problem with people (dolphins, whales, or space creatures, etc.)
posting anonymously. I do have *significant* problems with their lack of
seriousness that we see in their willingness to be confused by others of
the same name. I have even more significant problems with their seeming
willingness to expect me to straighten out this confusion that they are
either too lazy or too chaotically-oriented to do themselves. 
 
Even English monarchs, in centuries past when monarchs like Anonymous only
had one name, were given some additional signifier to keep them separate
(e.g. "Donald the Fat" vs. "Donald the Terribly Ugly" vs. "Donald the
Wonderful With A Really Good Ad Agency"). 
 
Scientific discussions to which people wish to contribute anonymously are
OK with me; the same discussions that are starting to resemble the
confusion of a Month Python skit are not. 
-- 
     -- tallpaul 
     -- Any political analysis that fits on a bumper sticker is wrong.

tallpaul writes:
>Even English monarchs, in centuries past when monarchs like Anonymous only
>had one name, were given some additional signifier to keep them separate
>(e.g. "Donald the Fat" vs. "Donald the Terribly Ugly" vs. "Donald the
>Wonderful With A Really Good Ad Agency"). 

Get a grip.  Those monarchs didn't make those names.  Others did.
You're free to make up your own relative clauses to attach to
"Anonymous" --- if they're good enough maybe others'll start using
them.

Meanwhile, *you* need to consider what reputation statements from
anonymous sources are worth.  One needs some degree of reputation to
make a useful comment on another's.